Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[136or142]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

What a load of garbage. I'm not a fan of the 'neoliberal' slur myself for a variety of reasons (neoliberalism is a systemic trend following the collapse of the post-war consensus, not a meaningful ideological descriptor), but surely labelling a party whose budget is prepared by the likes of Bill Morneau as such is more reasonable than describing a very moderate party of labour as EVIL COMMIES?

Despite Bill Morneau's association with the CD Howe Institute, his budget's have been in the red liberal tradition.  The government has spent billions on a greatly expanded children's benefit and the government is in the process of implementing carbon taxes.  Compare that to genuine 'neo-liberal' policies of the likes in the U.S of Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell along with the Trump Administration.

The 'neo-Liberal' agenda is largely defined by the so-called 'Washington Consensus', especially, as we see in the United States, cuts to social spending and regulations.

If the Canadian Liberal Party's economic policies, of which it seems you know practically nothing, are going to be placed into some idiotic binary of which it is on the right along with the U.S government of Randian extremists, then the NDP is equally part of this binary and is no different than Chavez in Venezuela or, presumably, Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

Yet, he refuses to stop exempting half the capital gains from taxes and to do anything about doctor incorporation or fiscal paradises.

I seem to recall then NDP Finance Critic Alexandre Boulerice supporting the doctors (and others) in the small business tax fight.  So, the NDP are communist neo-liberals, the worst kind.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

I'm well aware of the rationale, that was always clear. The nitty gritty of the proposals was not.

Kevin Milligan, who was the economist behind many of the proposals disagrees with you
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2017/09/10/taxation-of-private-corporations-an-explainer-compendium/

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

I'm well aware of the rationale, that was always clear. The nitty gritty of the proposals was not.

Kevin Milligan, who was the economist behind many of the proposals disagrees with you
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2017/09/10/taxation-of-private-corporations-an-explainer-compendium/

Milligan likes his own proposal?! We'll gee whiz. Next you'll tell me that Trudeau is voting Liberal in 2019.

Milligans website doesn't change the fact that the proposal as originally written, produced some really weird results like my 100% tax example. Bizarre cases like that indicate the proposal wasn't well written.

All it indicates is that it's impossible to write legislation, especially tax legislation, that fits into every individual circumstance.  This is why the tax code is as long as it is.  I don't doubt that there were problems with some of the regulations, especially in the one area, but by and large the legislation and the accompanying regulations were as clear and as well thought out as possible pending consultations.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

Small Businesses are the job creators and should be taxed at less than the Income Rate

There is no shortage of people who want to be 'job creators.'  By far the bigger problem is people who want to be 'job creators' because they are enticed by the lower taxation but don't otherwise have the temperament or skills to own a business than any problem with a lack of would be 'job creators.'

[136or142]

In non-PCPO news, Trost has lost renomination.

Story time: during the Tory leadership race, some friends and I were trying to decide which socon to first preference, so we decided to ask the candidates some questions at an event. Lemieux when pressed, admitted that he was running to give socons someone to vote for without reservations, and to make sure the new leader couldn't ignore us. Trost on the other hand really seemed to believe that he could pull off a victory.

I wonder if his penchant for overconfidence played a role in his downfall?

https://twitter.com/yknot05/status/972621238513184768

[136or142]

Andrew Scheer removes Maxime Bernier from Tory front bench
'I have removed Maxime Bernier from the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet, effective immediately'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-removed-front-bench-1.4703609

[136or142]

Andrew Scheer removes Maxime Bernier from Tory front bench
'I have removed Maxime Bernier from the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet, effective immediately'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-removed-front-bench-1.4703609

Probably a good idea. Twitter spats aren't accomplishing anything for the party.

I wonder if Bernier will run for the CAQ.

[136or142]

Tom Parkin, who kind of operates as the NDP's official stenographer in the Toronto Sun, seems to think that the BC and Ontario NDPs owe Singh big time and will yield big results.

I know polls are 'lagging indicators' but I can't see where this media 'it will be all over for Jagmeet as soon as he Singhs' comes from. Three of the four latest polls have the NDP at around 20% which is at the high end of their traditional polling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election

[136or142]

Can Singh at least hold the ROC seats and make some gains with an appeal to urban progressives, environmentalists and Sikhs?

Based on these polls I'd say it would have to be that way: if they're down in Quebec, they have to be up elsewhere.  I'm contrary to what others say about B.C though.  Keep in mind that, although the NDP knocked out several Conservatives, they kept their percentage of seats here the exact same: from 12/36 to 14/42.  The only seats I could really see the NDP gain here are Surrey Center and the Burnaby riding held by Liberal Terry Beech. If Jonathan Wilkinson in Burnaby-North Vancouver loses, I think it's more likely it would go to the Conservatives than to the NDP.

I don't know the electoral situation in any other parts of the country but If the NDP remains at 20% but declines in Quebec, I'd expect the NDP to gain in Toronto, South Western Ontario, Northern Ontario and Halifax.

[136or142]

I am a bit worried; our internal polling shows some rather high disapprovals for Singh in Ontario, even from progressives. I guess this might be because he doesn't have a seat (which I had thought didn't matter) and has been somewhat underwhelming so far.  I wonder if the fact that the NDP is at 20% has more to do with progressive dissatisfaction with Justin.

Weird.  I guess the most positive take on this is that the opposite of love isn't hate, but indifference.

[136or142]

The media talking heads say the NDP is in serious trouble and yet they're actually reaching post election highs (20% or so.)  Why is the NDP actually doing so well?  Post Ontario provincial election confusion or is there something more permanent to it?

[136or142]

The media talking heads say the NDP is in serious trouble and yet they're actually reaching post election highs (20% or so.)  Why is the NDP actually doing so well?  Post Ontario provincial election confusion or is there something more permanent to it?

Possible post election bounce, I suspect things will normalize over time as asides from Ontario no bounce in other provinces.  Also Wynne's unpopularity is probably a big reason many polls showed the Tories over 40% in Ontario, but I suspect with her now gone, the Tories will fall back into the 30s.

Thanks for the reply.

The only poll I saw with Ontario numbers had the Federal NDP at 26% in Ontario.  How does this compare with a couple months ago?

[136or142]

Bev Shipley is retiring.

Since that tweet is now down:
http://www.wallaceburgcourierpress.com/2018/07/08/bev-shipley-wont-be-running-in-next-federal-election

Also, "Bev Shipley is a man baby."

[136or142]

I should've said retiring next year. Anyway, Laverdiere is also retiring next year.

Well, since Shipley would have remained in his seat, that would have made for a very interesting by-election. 

[136or142]

Like everybody else here, I don't make much out of a single poll, but I found the latest Ipsos poll interesting for a couple reasons

Liberal: 39%
Conservative: 32%
NDP: 21%

First, these results are virtually identical to the 2015 election results. Second, the NDP is still at 21% even though it has lost its Ontario bounce as a result of the provincial election (back at 20%.)

The NDP is only at 18% in Quebec in this poll, but, instead the NDP retains this relatively high poll standing on the basis of British Columbia, where, according to this poll, they lead at 35%.

Of course, the overall survey was of 1,000 people so, the polling from B.C would be maybe 150, so, that gets back to the first point of not making too much of a single poll, but if the NDP received 35% of the vote in B.C it would be nearly unprecedented.  Only in the 1988 free trade election did the NDP come in first and get a higher share of the vote: 37%.  In the 2011 'Orange Crush' election, the NDP only received 32% of the vote in B.C.    

[136or142]

Mainstreet-AB: 52/33. Tories even lead in Edmonton.

It looks like they are do their quarterly poll for all provinces.  Also did BC today, while New Brunswick and Ontario earlier.  Federally Liberals have a slight lead, but are ahead in all areas except the Prairies.  New Brunswick shows a tie although if that pans out probably means a PC majority as PC vote is more efficient since NB Liberals tend to run up the margins in the Francophone areas while PCs win by smaller margins in the Anglophone areas.  Ontario shows the PCs well ahead, but just had an election so largely irrelevant as it is almost 4 years until they go to the polls.  BC shows NDP and BC Liberals tied but both barely at a third.  If you look at the left vs. right vote, also pretty close to tied too (NDP + Greens on left, while BC Liberals + BC Conservatives on right).

The New Brunswick poll was a bit odd in that I believe it showed pretty even support for both the P.Cs and the Liberals throughout the entire province. 

[136or142]

Andrew Scheer is arguably doing much worse than Jagmeet Singh. However, the vast majority of the Canadian punditocracy is conservative so that view hardly ever gets expressed.

The Conservatives are doing better in the polls than the result they received during the 2015 election, while the NDP is, at best, only doing as well (not a huge amount of difference either way) however I think the Conservatives are doing so in a way that could rebound on them negatively. They are clearly playing up fears over the irregular crossings and I think Scheer leaves himself open to charges that he is a dishonest fear monger.  Impossible to know how these things will work out, but this isn't the first time that Scheer has gone for short term gain at the possible expense of his longer term prospects.

[136or142]

Notley trashes Singh on the record as a thoughtless elitist who doesn't care about working people.

Why don't the Liberals ever infight like this anymore?

The New Brunswick Liberal government opposes the carbon tax.

[136or142]

Andrew Scheer is arguably doing much worse than Jagmeet Singh. However, the vast majority of the Canadian punditocracy is conservative so that view hardly ever gets expressed.

The Conservatives are doing better in the polls than the result they received during the 2015 election, while the NDP is, at best, only doing as well (not a huge amount of difference either way) however I think the Conservatives are doing so in a way that could rebound on them negatively. They are clearly playing up fears over the irregular crossings and I think Scheer leaves himself open to charges that he is a dishonest fear monger.  Impossible to know how these things will work out, but this isn't the first time that Scheer has gone for short term gain at the possible expense of his longer term prospects.

I think Scheer will have difficulty catching on in the GTA and Greater Vancouver.  Running up the margins in the Prairies and rural Ontario won't translate into many seats.

The NDP will almost certainly lose ground in Quebec, but there may be an opening for Singh among progressives in Ontario and BC as well as in the Sikh community.   But he's not running "for PM."

John Ibbitson had an interesting article on the irregular crossers and actually it could go either way.  Polls clearly show most Canadians want stronger action on it and while generous with immigration, people tend to not like those coming in illegally thus risk for Liberals, particularly in Quebec which tends to be more nationalistic.  On the other hand if the Tories come across as xenophobic could hurt them big time especially in the GTA and Lower Mainland.  As for the GTA, I could still see them making big gains in the 905 belt, after all Harper got over 40% in most 905 ridings in 2015 so it will come down to splits.  If NDP does poorly then 905 stays red, but NDP gains then the splits are enough to allow the Tories to flip most of those ridings they got over 40%.  In the Lower Mainland suburbs, again also comes down to splits.  The Tories were rock bottom so expect them to improve a bit in 2019, but obviously well short of where they were in 2011.  If you have a perfect three way split like you did in 2004, they could win a whole wack of seats with only 1/3 of the vote, but if not I suspect they won't win many west of Langley.

I agree that 30% is the Conservative base but I don't agree completely that they hit rock bottom. They had 140 or so incumbents running again (to be sure some of the riding boundaries had changed, but they mainly got smaller.) This time they'll have about 90.  It's the Liberals this time who will benefit from any 'incumbent vote.'

This is a factor that has clearly NOT been taken into account in the discussion to this point.

[136or142]

Andrew Scheer is arguably doing much worse than Jagmeet Singh. However, the vast majority of the Canadian punditocracy is conservative so that view hardly ever gets expressed.

The Conservatives are doing better in the polls than the result they received during the 2015 election, while the NDP is, at best, only doing as well (not a huge amount of difference either way) however I think the Conservatives are doing so in a way that could rebound on them negatively. They are clearly playing up fears over the irregular crossings and I think Scheer leaves himself open to charges that he is a dishonest fear monger.  Impossible to know how these things will work out, but this isn't the first time that Scheer has gone for short term gain at the possible expense of his longer term prospects.

I think Scheer will have difficulty catching on in the GTA and Greater Vancouver.  Running up the margins in the Prairies and rural Ontario won't translate into many seats.

The NDP will almost certainly lose ground in Quebec, but there may be an opening for Singh among progressives in Ontario and BC as well as in the Sikh community.   But he's not running "for PM."

John Ibbitson had an interesting article on the irregular crossers and actually it could go either way.  Polls clearly show most Canadians want stronger action on it and while generous with immigration, people tend to not like those coming in illegally thus risk for Liberals, particularly in Quebec which tends to be more nationalistic.  On the other hand if the Tories come across as xenophobic could hurt them big time especially in the GTA and Lower Mainland.  As for the GTA, I could still see them making big gains in the 905 belt, after all Harper got over 40% in most 905 ridings in 2015 so it will come down to splits.  If NDP does poorly then 905 stays red, but NDP gains then the splits are enough to allow the Tories to flip most of those ridings they got over 40%.  In the Lower Mainland suburbs, again also comes down to splits.  The Tories were rock bottom so expect them to improve a bit in 2019, but obviously well short of where they were in 2011.  If you have a perfect three way split like you did in 2004, they could win a whole wack of seats with only 1/3 of the vote, but if not I suspect they won't win many west of Langley.

I agree that 30% is the Conservative base but I don't agree completely that they hit rock bottom. They had 140 or so incumbents running again (to be sure some of the riding boundaries had changed, but they mainly got smaller.) This time they'll have about 90.  It's the Liberals this time who will benefit from any 'incumbent vote.'

This is a factor that has clearly NOT been taken into account in the discussion to this point.

True enough, although amongst the base I sense a strong hatred of Trudeau.  Not enough to defeat him, but enough to make it tough for Liberals make inroads.  Also many Blue Liberals are not overly happy with Trudeau either and with Scheer being unknown a lot will depend on how disciplined a campaign he runs.  If he panders too much to his base they will swing back, but if he runs a disciplined one like Harper did in 2006, I could see him picking up many of those.  Not enough to actually win the election, far from it.  Although Nanos which is the most accurate pollster has Liberals only 0.3 ahead so while a lot can happen between now a next year, I would probably want the Liberals to have a bigger lead before safely concluding they are going to win.  That being said don't think Scheer will become PM in 2019 since I cannot see a path to 170 for the Tories and if they fail to win a majority, NDP will prop up the Liberals much like Greens are for BC NDP.

I agree with the characterization from Ibbitson, but the way I'd put it is the Conservatives seem to be playing for short term political gains at the possible expense at the ballot box.  Not only in terms of xenophobia but also in terms of being characterized as a fear-monger (on irregular border crossings, on marijuana legalization, on deficit spending on the one hand and then calling for massive tax cuts to match Trump and the U.S lest the Canadian economy collapse.)  Except to the hard core conservatives they can hardly counter that being concerned about and wanting to address global warming is fear mongering any more.

The issue here though is that Scheer seems to be incapable of learning from his mistakes. When he was first elected as leader I believe the first issue he addressed was 'free speech' on university campuses and not surprisingly after a few months he had to walk it back by essentially saying 'when I meant free speech for everybody, I didn't literally mean 'everybody''

These Conservatives seem to be increasingly addicted to scoring the immediate political points as they are increasingly right wing (reactionary) populist.  Certainly it's my bias that I want and hope that it ends up hurting them bigly, but that it will is, I think, much greater than just a 'non zero possibility.'

[136or142]

If Maxime Bernier were removed from the Conservative caucus how likely would he be to be reelected as an independent in Beauce?

[136or142]

Does anybody know of any former Canadian journalist who now works in international relations? Genuinely asking for a (twitter) friend

[136or142]

On Power and Politics today one commentator said that "Three Quebec NDP M.Ps have decided they are going to retire and four others are considering it."

I presume this includes the two who have already announced, Laverdiere and Saganash.